Three-Dimensional Hoek-Brown Strength Criterion for Rocks

Zhang, Lianyang; Zhu, Hehua

doi:10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2007)133:9(1128)

Cited by 148 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(1)-(3). Zhang and Zhu (2007) demonstrated that the only difference between their yield criterion and the one proposed by Pan and Hudson (1988) is the absence of the intermediate principal stress in the third term of Eq. (1).…”

Section: Generalised Zhang-zhu (Gzz) Criterionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…The Zhang-Zhu criterion was first presented by Zhang and Zhu (2007). A generalised version of this criterion, based on the generalised Hoek-Brown criterion, was presented by Zhang (2008) as follows:…”

Section: Generalised Zhang-zhu (Gzz) Criterionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Threedimensional versions of the 2DHB failure criterion have been proposed by Pan and Hudson (1988), Priest (2005) and Zhang and Zhu (2007). Zhang (2008) presented a generalised version of the Zhang-Zhu criterion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The widespread adoption of the empirical two-dimensional Hoek-Brown failure criterion (2DHB) (Hoek and Brown 1997;Hoek et al 2002) for rock engineering applications has prompted a number of researchers to develop three-dimensional versions, in which the predicted major effective principal stress at failure is dependent on the intermediate effective principal stress, in addition to the parameters in the existing 2DHB failure criterion. Threedimensional versions of the 2DHB failure criterion have been proposed by Pan and Hudson (1988), Priest (2005) and Zhang and Zhu (2007). Zhang (2008) presented a generalised version of the Zhang-Zhu criterion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Three-Dimensional Failure Criteria Based on the Hoek–Brown Criterion

Priest

2012

Rock Mech Rock Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(Hoek and Brown 1997;Hoek et al. 2002) for rock engineering applications has prompted a number of researchers to develop three-dimensional versions, in which the predicted major effective principal stress at failure is dependent on the intermediate effective principal stress, in addition to the parameters in the existing 2DHB failure criterion. Threedimensional versions of the 2DHB failure criterion have been proposed by Pan and Hudson (1988), Priest (2005) and Zhang and Zhu (2007). Zhang (2008) presented a generalised version of the Zhang-Zhu criterion. Melkoumian et al. (2009) presented an explicit version of the 'comprehensive' Priest criterion. Conventionally, in the literature, each criterion has been named after the author(s) who first described the criterion; this convention will be adopted here. It is likely that additional new three-dimensional versions of the HoekBrown criterion will be developed over the next few years. BackgroundThe most recent generalised version of the 2DHB failure criterion is introduced by Eberhardt and Rahjoo (this volume). This version of the Hoek-Brown criterion is here referred to as 'generalised' because the key parameters m b , s and a can take any general values to allow the application to intact rock and to rock masses. The paper explains how the parameters m b , s and a for a fractured rock mass can be estimated from empirical expressions.

show abstract

Section: Generalised Zhang-zhu (Gzz) Criterionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Generalised Zhang-zhu (Gzz) Criterionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Three-Dimensional Failure Criteria Based on the Hoek–Brown Criterion

Priest

2012

Rock Mech Rock Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This has led to the development of several 3-D versions of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion (Pan and Hudson 1988;Priest 2005;Zhang and Zhu 2007;Zhang 2008;Melkoumian et al 2009). Figure 5 compares the comprehensive and simplified 3-D Hoek-Brown envelopes developed by Priest (2005) to other commonly used criteria for a given hydrostatic stress.…”

Section: Advantages and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%